Saving Nigeria from religion

THE loud but needless allegation of bias recently leveled against the leadership of the National Conference by an officer of the Christian Association of Nigeria, CAN, brings to the fore, once again, the negative role religion has been playing in the life of the country. There is hardly any step taken or policy formulated by government for the benefit of all Nigerians that is not subjected to the unwarranted scrutiny of religionists and their acolytes. The positions arrived at and pronouncements made, as an outcome of this religious scrutiny in several cases may be so illogical and provocative to give rise to the conclusion that they could not have been made in good faith. So to some extent, religion is
a paradoxical menace to the unity, orderliness and growth of the country. Only the other day did the Muslim Ulamas lead a high powered delegation headed by no less a person than the Sultan of Sokoto, Sa’ad Abubakar, to President Jonathan to kick against the composition of the conference which, according to them, had more Christian delegates than Muslim. Yet Nigeria as a nation was not founded solely on the basis of Muslim/Christian configuration such that decision – making must per force reflect or pander absolutely to the dictates or sentiments or ideal of the configuration in a way that is perfect. It is only by sheer providence that the nation has been able to survive the war of attrition and mutual distrust created by religion and fanned dutifully, selfishly and hypocritically by its leaders.
Had every religious leader or their followers adhered to the tenets of their religion in a way that is altruistic and shorn of worldly manipulations and content, there is no doubt that Nigeria would have been a better place for every citizen and would have been saved much of the stress and strain being witnessed today.
The unhealthy rivalry between the two dominant religions, Christianity and Islam, is so bad that the polity has on a number of occasions been subjected to undue tension and bitter acrimony. It is on record that tension generated by conflict of religious interests and beliefs have led to loss of lives and property, while otherwise peaceful communities have been reduced to rubbles. Those who live in Plateau and Kaduna States in particular can bear testimony to the evil effect of religion on peaceful coexistence. Yet, religion is supposed to be the surest guarantee of peaceful coexistence, tolerance, accommodation, understanding, cooperation, forgiveness and the attributes of give and take. It was never intended as an instrument of destruction or incitement.
What really was the grouse of the CAN official in this instance? It was the composition of the Committee on Religion, which according to him was skewed in favour of the Muslim. He was also dissatisfied that the person named as the Co- Chairman of the Committee, though a Christian and in fact a Catholic Bishop, is not a representative of CAN at the Conference. To him, the fact that he is a Christian is not enough guarantee that he will speak for or protect Christian values, which he would have done were he a direct delegate of CAN. Above all, he did not come from the north and so could not understand what Christians go through in the northern part of the country. Nothing could be more nebulous and self-defeating as this contention. Clearly and unambiguously, it stands logic on its head. Worse still, it is a veritable source of division and mutual distrust within the Christian community. Until CAN itself disclaimed the statement, it called to question its claim to being the umbrella body of all Christians in the country. Fortunately, the association quickly shed this impression by dissociating itself from a complaint of alleged marginalisation or improper representation even where a Christian is named as a member of a body.
In essence, that protest, even with CAN’s disclaimer did more damage to the body than its target – the Chairman of the Conference, Justice Legbo Kutigi-who was its victim of angry denunciation and bitter vituperations.
This is not the kind of divisive position an organization as broad-based and eminent as CAN should want to identify with particularly at this time when the nation is trying to rise above tribal and political cleavages accentuated in particular by religious bigotry and fundamentalism. In the situation such as at hand in the country, where insurgency is ravaging a part of the country, the only befitting role religion and religious leaders should be conciliatory and fence mending, never to widen existing cracks.
What could be more dishonest and self-serving than the argument that only a Christian from the north should co-chair the Committee on Religion? Did it ever occur to the protagonist of this view that this could also offend other sensibilities such as ethnic and geopolitical balancing? Geopolitical balancing is a recipe for peaceful coexistence and a desideratum in a federation.
In time past, when religious institutions and places of worship had not proliferated, Nigerians had always lived in peace and lived for one another, giving little space to religious indoctrinations in the area of common interest.  
In the conduct of government business and formulation of policies, religion played little or no role. So it was in the 1993 elections that it did not matter to Nigerians what the religious beliefs of their President and Vice president were. Nigerians felt no hesitation in voting Moshood Abiola, a Muslim as their president and Babagana Kingibe, another Muslim, his deputy.
Before then, there was aMuhammadu Buhari as the Head of State and Tunde Idiagbon, another Muslim, as his deputy. No issue was made of the fact that both of them were Muslims. That is how it is in saner countries of the world where religion is a private affair. And that is what the constitution of Nigeria expects it to be. If Nigeria must have a new lease of life, religion must cease to be a defining factor or must play a less of destructive role.
Let religious adherents realise that the conference was not set up because of religion alone and would not be assessed on the basis of how its composition or deliberations conform with religious nuances or expectations. There are other areas of concern that require the attention and success of the conference but which unwarranted outbursts and raising of alarm may undermine. Religion may well be part of the problems the conference is meant to address but it can only achieve its mandate if it is not torn apart by negative religious sentiments.
Of course, this is not to say that government or government institutions must go out of their way to undermine the religious sensibilities of people. A national conference such as the one going on now cannot afford to be guilty of that. Its creation is not unconnected with the country’s desire to lay to rest existing prejudices and distrusts within the polity and feeling of marginalisation in whatever form, as a way of inspiring confidence in the strength of a diverse country. If the confab is sensitive to all areas of mutual distrust, it will earn the confidence and trust of the people, and this will certainly imbue its decisions and final recommendations with legitimacy and acceptability.  
This is how, in the final analysis, a new Nigeria, which is the dream of all, will be born.